Current Page

[struggler]

A work colleague of mine is heading off to mediation. Before buying an apartment I told him to check the bylaws re pet ownership as he has two small dogs. This he did with the by laws stating permission could not be unreasonably denied.

Within a couple of weeks he was issued with a notice to comply. There was no complaint made about the dogs. They were simply sighted coming into the complex by a committee member.

I have advised him to argue that this denial is unreasonable as it has been issued simply because the dogs are there not because they have caused damage or made noise, acted aggressively or let loose on common property. The EC have not even given the dogs nor owner a chance to prove themselves. This to me is unreasonable.

Any tips I could pass on to take to this mediation?

Topic

[mattb]

Hi Struggler

 

From your post, it actually sounds like your friend didn’t get any approval prior to being issued the notice to comply.

While approval can’t be ‘unreasonably witheld’ according to the bylaws, if the OC has not had any opportunity to grant or deny permission, then a notice to comply is probably fair enough as your friend simply turned up with the dogs.

 

Prior to mediation, I would advise your friend to approach the EC to either get approval, conditions for approval (or their reasons for rejection) and then, if it is warranted, take it to mediation.

Quote

[struggler]

He did apply for permission to keep the dogs. The EC held a meeting which my colleague attended. The decision was no, although the decision was not unanimous but 50/50. He then received a notice to comply from the SM. Mediation is booked.

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

Interesting …if the decision was 50-50, does that mean no permission or no refusal? I guess it’s the former but it sounds like your friend has very good grounds to take to the mediation.
If the EC wants to ban pets on principle, they need to change their by-laws (and that ain’t going to happen if the EC vote reflects the feeling of of the owners).
Compromise is the key to successful mediation and if your friend offers to allow reasonable conditions to be applied to the permission, that should play well at the CTTT (if it gets that far).

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

Quote

[struggler]

Well my colleague has been to mediation with his EC about his dogs.  No chance to plead his case.  The decision still stands at no.

I thought mediation was the place where one side got to say their two cents worth then the other side had a say.  Then they try to find a middle ground.  What a waste of everyone’s time if there was no real discussion or debate.  So now its off to the adjudicator. Another 5 weeks wait for that to happen.

In the meantime, after a couple of months since receiving the notice to comply, there has been no complaints made by residents in the complex about the presence of the dogs.  Only from the EC.

Apparently this EC has not issued any notices to comply about anything before.  Not even to those residents who regularly make use of the visitors car spot.  Another example of an EC picking and choosing which by laws they enforce?  Though and EC does not have an obligation to enforce any by laws in the state of NSW, it should be an all or nothing scenario.  Issue them for every bylaw that applies to your complex, or shut your eyes and walk quickly in and out the front door.   You shouldn’t be able to apply one by law here and one there, and let the rest go.

Quote

[Author]

Replies